Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34536087›Full record

ReviewNaunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology2021

Problems associated with the use of the term "antibiotics".

Roland Seifert, Bastian Schirmer

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Roland SeifertInstitute of Pharmacology, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany. seifert.roland@mh-hannover.de.
Bastian SchirmerInstitute of Pharmacology, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4074-3584

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The term "antibiotics" is a broadly used misnomer to designate antibacterial drugs. In a recent article, we have proposed to replace, e.g., the term "antibiotics" by "antibacterial drugs", "antibiosis" by "antibacterial therapy", "antibiogram" by "antibacteriogram", and "antibiotic stewardship" by "antibacterial stewardship" (Seifert and Schirmer Trends Microbiol, 2021). In the present article, we show that many traditional terms related to antibiotics are used much more widely in the biomedical literature than the respective scientifically precise terms. This practice should be stopped. Moreover, we provide arguments to end the use of other broadly used terms in the biomedical literature such as "narrow-spectrum antibiotics" and "reserve antibiotics", "chemotherapeutics", and "tuberculostatics". Finally, we provide several examples showing that antibacterial drugs are used for non-antibacterial indications and that some non-antibacterial drugs are used for antibacterial indications now. Thus, the increasing importance of drug repurposing renders it important to drop short designations of drug classes such as "antibiotics". Rather, the term "drug" should be explicitly used, facilitating the inclusion of newly emerging indications such as antipsychotic and anti-inflammatory. This article is part of an effort to implement a new rational nomenclature of drug classes across the entire field of pharmacology.

Indexed as

Terminology as TopicAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntibiosisAntimicrobial StewardshipDrug RepositioningHumansMicrobial Sensitivity TestsAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntibiogramAntibioticsAntibiotic stewardshipBroad-spectrum antibioticsChemotherapeuticsReserve antibiotics

Identifiers

PMID34536087
PMCPMC8449524

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.